I grew up with the Harry Potter books. There were Christmases when the Harry Potter box set was the background audio for the holidays. 

Now, I avoid them at all costs. For years I’ve heard excuses about separating art from the artist and the importance of the franchise to people. But there are at least some actors and directors distancing themselves from opportunities tied to this golden goose of a property, and old die-hard fans are turning their backs on Harry Potter, recognizing the harm it brings. It’s not too late for everyone to walk away.

---

---

Of course, part of the problem with Harry Potter is that outside of the communities that keep up with trans news, there are still people who genuinely don’t know about the problems with the franchise and its author.

Certainly, the books themselves are fun. They captured so many hearts for a reason. Looking back at Rowling’s work with an adult and critical eye, there are underlying problems that I missed as a child, from racism to antisemitism to pro-slavery messaging. In the original books, there’s very little to hint at an anti-trans bias, mainly unpleasant descriptions of the journalist Rita Skeeter.

But in 2019, Rowling defended anti-trans campaigner Maya Forstater on Twitter, and then in June 2020 wrote an extensive blog post about why she is anti-trans. Since then she’s only gone further, leading the anti-trans crusade in the UK and internationally.

In September 2020, she released a book under her pen name Robert Galbraith (perhaps coincidentally also the name of a pro-conversion therapy psychiatrist) in which a man wears a dress to sneak into women’s spaces and murder them. She has become obsessively vocal on social media about the fictitious harms of trans women and gender-affirming care for youth.

And crucially, she has funded legal cases against trans people, such as the one by For Women Scotland, which led to the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in 2025that defined trans women as not being women for the 2010 Equality Act. In 2024, she went so far as to establish the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, which continues her “ongoing financial support for legal cases involving women’s and girls’ sex-based rights.”

Since then, she has been a major part in the campaign to put financial and legal pressure on every group from the Women’s Institute to the Girl Guides to exclude trans women and girls.

Time and again, people have told me that, yes, Rowling is a hateful woman, but Harry Potter is so important to them because of its formative influence on their youth, friendships, or romantic relationships, that they can separate the franchise from the creator, and that makes it okay.

But as strange as it sounds, there’s a straight line that can be drawn from support of JK Rowling’s intellectual property to the restrictive EHRC and KCSIEguidance going into effect, which will bar trans people from spaces and put them (and anyone not conforming to stereotypical gender expression) in harm’s way.  

Money spent on Harry Potter goes to Rowling, who then spends it on her anti-trans crusade. But the cultural relevance that Harry Potter and Rowling still hold is also key here. Even when no money is going directly to Rowling, maintaining that relevance signals to the world that Harry Potter is more important than trans people. Engaging with the content and referencing it gives tacit approval to Rowling’s views and encourages her to keep going.

When TV shows and movies reference the franchise without acknowledging the hate that has become its legacy (looking at you, Ted Lasso season 4), it makes me distinctly uncomfortable. I have to ask whether this content is safe, or whether the people behind it wish me dead. It’s one step short of a crass man-in-a-dress anti-trans joke. And I have to wonder if the reference speaks to ignorance on trans issues and Rowling’s crusade, or to not caring about anti-trans hate? In 2026, neither is a good look.

Five years ago, her unmasking as an anti-trans soldier was still relatively new, and there was some leeway for people to plead ignorance. But at this point it should be especially apparent that this is not a franchise to get involved in if you are pro-trans, and celebrities should be firing their managers if they haven’t warned them about it.

Both Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have spoken out against Rowling’s attacks and in support of the trans community (much to Rowling’s distaste).

Two directors recently revealed that they had turned HBO’s Harry Potter downwhen approached to direct episodes of the show because of Rowling’s anti-trans attacks: Ally Pankiw (known for The Great) and Kate Herron (known for Loki).

But there are still big celebrities who refuse to turn it down and think they can have it both ways. Last week, we learned that Rupert Grint will be returning to the franchise on stage, despite previously speaking about the importance of trans rights. Paapa Essiedu is playing Snape in the HBO show, a major role that will push the social relevance of an anti-trans creator’s work, but he has also signed a letter supporting trans rights.

Bel Powley, who is playing Petunia Dursley, has said she strongly disagrees with Rowling on trans rights, and went as far as to say, “I think that the trans community deserves safety and dignity and respect and total acceptance.” However, she then dismissed all of that with her reason for saying “yes” to the role: “But, I love Harry Potter.”

John Lithgow, who famously played trans character Roberta Muldoon in The World According to Garp, is cast as Dumbledore. He has defended trans rights, says he disagrees with Rowling’s views, emphasized that she’s not really involved in the show, and said he “considered quitting the series” after the backlash. But he didn’t.

Any of them could have turned the show down, or left once they learned more about what they would actually be supporting. Recently, we saw Nicholas Hoult sign on as Gildroy Lockhart for season 2. After a week of backlash over the role, he suddenly claimed to have some “scheduling conflicts” and left the show. Whether those scheduling conflicts were real or not, it shows you can walk away.

All of these celebrities are keeping Rowling relevant. They can support trans rights off-screen; they can say they were conflicted but a huge fan of the content, but ultimately they’re telling us where their priorities lie. They’re aiding and abetting Rowling by maintaining the cash flow and cultural relevance she uses to push her hateful agenda.

When the new Harry Potter show drops this December, I won’t be watching. A few of my friends who were once apologists for Rowling have given in and acknowledged that she pushes too much hate and pain. I know it will be tempting for those looking for some nostalgia to check out the series. But whether you’re a viewer, actor, or director, it’s not too late to walk away.